We cannot imagine trying to turn the principals and teachers who care for our children every day into an armed mob....

He proposed a mob? This is a failure (or pretended failure) of imagination. What if those who worked in schools were offered training in weapons and permission to carry in schools if they could qualify — entirely optional? Is that idea obviously mendacious, delusional, and almost deranged? The NYT is hot to exclude it as something any sane person would even begin to contemplate. They'd like an instant crazy image of teachers gone wild.

People like Mr. LaPierre want us to believe that civilians can be trained to use lethal force with cold precision in moments of fear and crisis. That requires a willful ignorance about the facts.

If "civilians" can't be trained, how can noncivilians be trained? And quite aside from how well people hit targets, isn't the presence of an armed guard a deterrent from beginning an attack, and doesn't pointing a gun at the criminal sometimes end his attack?

Moving on from the NYT, here's Andrew Sullivan absorbing LaPierre into an all-out assault on the GOP titled "Enough!":

Between the humiliating and chaotic collapse of Speaker Boehner's already ludicrously extreme Plan B and Wayne La Pierre's deranged proposal to put government agents in schools with guns, the Republican slide into total epistemic closure and political marginalization has now become a free-fall. This party, not to mince words, is unfit for government.

If that kind of hysteria — sounding deranged in the condemnation of derangement — is what counts as unminced words these days, I'd like to put in an order for minced words. I'd like to aim a precise scoff at the phrase "government agents in schools." Agents! Sounds very scary, but the truth is, teachers are government agents.

Anyway, Sullivan's style of hysterical talk wins The Game of Internet, where the score is kept in traffic statistics. And Sullivan himself is boasting that his "Enough!" post "has just blown up on Facebook." Kablooey! He's so sensitive about those terrible guns, but his metaphor of choice is explosion.

If teachers don't possess the maturity and judgment to handle a firearm responsibly - a similar firearm to those we routinely issue to 19 year olds in war zones, no less - then how can we assume they possess the maturity and judgment to remain on as schoolteachers?

What the NY Times and the NY Post need is a good crazed murderer running amok in their offices. With a knife or a bomb, not a gun, so those flaming faggots can feel the fear of being disarmed and helpless, like the women they are.

Even better: if the asshole stole a gun out of a policeman's holster.The irony of their deaths would be delicious and hilarious.

Incidentally, allowing teachers the option of licensed CCW was Larry Correia's main recommendation in the essay you linked to last night. Also cheaper than hiring sworn officers. As a bonus that Correia didn't mention, it could probably be included in teacher's union negotiations in the future, with the armed teachers receiving higher pay for the added responsibility. And how quickly would they arm up then?

On the other hand, I do think arming teachers might not be as good as having a dedicated professional, like a police or resource officer, on hand. This is a reasonable policy put forward that is open to debate. The NYT, and others, have again decided debate is hard, and to stick with high school level ridicule instead of actually dealing with their ideological opponents. And, sadly, it will probably work.

And this is coming from someone with no intention of ever going about armed because I don't want that responsibility. I'm literally the sort of person who should be persuadable to tighter gun controls: I don't trust people; I want to reduce violent crime. But, when on one hand I have the NRA proposing a, perhaps extreme, but viable solution, and the other side essentially going "You're a stupid head," let's just say I'm not even being wooed by the other side.

The Times takes another giant step towards non-entityhood. This op-ed calls LaPierre's statement a "mendacious, delusional, almost deranged rant?" Their own screed is just the equivalent of screaming on a street corner.

First comes the rhetoric, then comes the deed. Remember, these are the folks who talk about "speech-acts".

It is truly sad to see, yet again, what passes for "reasonable voices in positions of power" on the Left go completely unhinged like this.

There will come a time, probably in the next few years, where some Lefties in a position of power, will move against the Right in an abuse of that power. I expect the Right will fight back, probably with violence.

I carried a Glock 26 (one spare magazine) through a WalMart, two national retail stores, and stood in line a total of almost twenty minutes without once snapping and gunning down any fellow shoppers.

There weren't any instances of attempted mass shootings where I drew my weapon, attempted to stop the threat but instead gunned down the six wheelchair-bound special needs kids from the charter school.

Nor did my xenophobia, homophobia, myopia, or general low brow lack of judgement (all accepted traits of anyone who ever voted for a Republican) [excluding Olympia Snow or Mike Blloomberg or Charlie Crist] drive me to randomly attack those folks of diverse origin, to whit- Pacifica Islanders, South Americans (hey, it was Portuguese), West Africa (I asked), Mexico, Candada, China, the Philippines, more Mexico, Black, Brown, Native American... that were all flowing through the stores yesterday looking to buy gifts to give other people.

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Considering it took 20 minutes for the Newtown police to arrive at the scene, the NRA slogan was horribly proven right. Why anyone with two working neurons would read Sullivan or the NYT opinion page is beyond me.

LAPIERRE: Now, the National Rifle Association knows there are millions of qualified and active retired police, active, Reserve, and retired military, security professionals, certified firefighters, security professionals, rescue personnel, an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained, qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every single school.

We could deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America’s schools safer, relying on the brave men and women in America’s police forces.

The New York Times gets this:

We cannot imagine trying to turn the principals and teachers who care for our children every day into an armed mob

The NYT editorial board is now just a bunch of overpaid fucking liars.

@TmjUtah - Funny. I carry a 26 as my CCW, not because I love it so much, but it's got identical controls to my full size Glock and I like that. Plus it's hefty enough to practice shooting 45's.

Around here they typically go to Wally World to scoop up people make jury pools big enough. But if you're carrying they won't give you the summons because you won't have time to go home, stow the weapon, and then get to court. And you can't even leave it in your trunk. And nobody is stupid enough to leave it with the cops at the door.

Matthew Sablan said...On the other hand, I do think arming teachers might not be as good as having a dedicated professional, like a police or resource officer, on hand.

One of my grade schools had a police annex attached to the administrative offices. A desk for the dispatcher and room for officers to work during and between shifts. If that idea makes some wet themselves, how hard is it for your local police to make it very public policy that they show up in the halls at random times during the school day?

Adam Lanza was a civilian, only 20 years old at that, and he managed to shoot and kill 26 people, leaving only 2 wounded. That surely is quite a feat of "cold precision," no?

Anyway, it seems a lot of school districts already are ahead of Mr. LaPierre. I have read that a third of them around the country already had police officers assigned to them before Sandy Hook, and a lot more are signing up since.

Some school principals and teachers already are CCW, and it may be a good idea to expand that as a policy. However, I assume that most of those that do carry now do it for self defense in extremis. The legal consequences if they go to shooting in defense of their pupils is presumably something they have thought about and do not wish to get involved with.

If communities wish teachers to do that, they need first to get something done about liability laws and "malpractice" insurance.

Perhaps Red Chinese gunboats on the Hudson would smarten them up. Kablooey! Another shell lands on the Upper West Side. Who will save them? The United Nations? American troops from the traditionally despised flyover country?

You're really not that ignorant are you? CCW permits generally require (when there is any requirement of firearms competency at all) that the applicant demonstrate they can handle a gun safely, they don't need to show that they can hit the side of a barn. Non-civilians (e.g., law enforcement personnel) are usually required to demonstrate, on a regular basis, their competence with a firearm.

I'm still hoping for the suburbs to wake up and realize that their moral worth doesn't depend on being cool enough to like Obama.

He's really not a moderate. He's a further Left activist, and that's where he's dragging the party and country. He's using the Democratic party and bending it toward himself.

This will result in higher taxes, fewer jobs, more politics and money tied together, a diminished quality of life and a bleaker future for your kids. Are relations between the races any better? Is promising money we don't have to most people who would waste it anyways progress? You will soon see how his 'business model' affects your daily life.

The tools over at the Times emptied themselves of content a while ago. They became so open-minded their brains fell out.

Freder: All of those "noncivilians" started as "civilians." Choosing to be an officer or soldier doesn't cause me to suddenly get an influx of knowledge, Matrix style. You can teach people skills; electing to be part of a group doesn't impart the knowledge divinely into your skull.

NYT:People like Mr. LaPierre want us to believe that civilians can be trained to use lethal force with cold precision in moments of fear and crisis.

People at the NYT want us to believe that all of the training our police rookies and military enlistees receive is totally worthless in moments of fear and crisis - though they all begin as civilians.

It is criminal for the NYT to opine, through ignorant placemen and women behind keyboards, about training in use of lethal force - when every one of those placeholding drones has 'conscientiously' avoided such training like the plague.

Hey the New Yawk Slimes and Andrew Sullivan said the same thing when Bush wanted to arm the airline pilots and some member of the cabin crew to protect them and the passengers from terrorists. So, in other words, it is the same old horse hockey; whenever someone proposes to protect themselves or their friends from the predators that are roaming around loose. Then again these kooks are all for the criminal having more rights than the law-abiding citizen.

Where the hell does the NYT think non-civilians come from? They're all civilians at some point. Every soldier, policeman, security guard, etc was a civilian first. Strange but true.

We have unarmed security guards where I work. We all know it's a joke. Providing they're not the first person taken down, they're only function would be to call the police. For genuine security, we'd be better off with an employee response team. When I worked at the mental health center we had such a team for response when a patient threatened violence. Very effective.

The NYT and the huge majority of these other cowards don't give a shit about dead kids. All they care about is pushing the left wing agenda and subjugating us to the government, the only thing to which we all belong. Remember that, you below to the government.

Andrew Sullivan is the ultimate bad faith/blind faith ideologue.He doesn't understand truth or reality.Sprinkle on Andrew's trademark Jewish/Israel paranoia, and you have one deranged lunatic. I have no idea how or why anyone can stomach his bullshit.

Set aside all positions for teachers and custodians for returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. They know how to use weapons. Two problems solved. Vets find jobs and weapons trained individuals are in schools.

Right now, because of Obama's election, the establishment media is operating under the belief that it can once again mold popular opinion without reference to oppositional argument and reality. We'll see.

Keep in mind, the NYT is saying that a ban on large capacity magazines would help stop tragedies like Newtown.

Fact check:

(CNN) -- The semi-automatic rifle used in the Colorado theater killings jammed during the rampage, apparently because of a problem with the 100-shot magazine feeding it, a law enforcement source with direct knowledge of the investigation said Sunday.

The military-style AR-15 had a separately purchased drum magazine, which can have trouble feeding bullets into the firing chamber if the gun is fired rapidly, the source told CNN.

"These after-market extended magazines have a tendency to jam," the source said.

One of the survivors of the early Friday assault, Josh Nowlan, said Saturday that he would not have been alive if the suspect's gun had not jammed.

Tragedy could summon our better angels, but it often doesn't. The Times editors and Andrew Sullivan are ignorant and shameless. Neither know what epistemic closure means beyond a silly internet meme. Neither would know a semi-automatic from a cap gun. But they shriek and beg for attention while Sandyhook parents bury six and seven year olds, and their teachers. Disgusting.

I wonder what those parents might think in a year or so from now about armed teachers or police in school. We'll never know. The Times and Sullivan will have forgotten Sandyhook, and will be whoring something else.

ordinary citizens can't be trusted to handle guns safely and fire them effectively, where do we get our police officers and soldiers?

We train them in the use of firearms. You seem to be missing my point (probably deliberately). Most CCW permits do not require the applicant demonstrate proficiency with a firearm, just the ability to handle it safely (akin to giving someone a drivers license if they can pass the written test).

When you advocate that ccw permit holders be required to demonstrate they can actually hit what they are aiming at, then we can talk.

In the Great State of Utah, brandishing a firearm - not pointing, not aiming - is regarded in the eyes of the law as intent to use deadly force. Whether in commission of a crime, or not, once you have brought one into the situation you are exposed.

That's why most CCW instructors concentrate on judgement before tactics.

BTW, you don't point a rifled weapon. You point a shotgun. (Knees, ladies, always hold at the knees, and use buckshot no smaller than #4). A pistol or rifle is aimed, which is important because your finger stays off the trigger until you are sighted, aligned, sure of your backstop.

You have already decided to shoot before your finger hits the trigger.

Freder argues that most CCW licenses only require that the applicant demonstrate "just the ability to handle it [the concealed weapon] safely.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable test. I infer that "safely" means that the applicant is not at risk for harming herself or others--which suggests that they can't hit anything--people (even badgirls), pets, property, nada.

Gary Henmigan's mother kept a gun in her purse, a big ol' bag. Always a lot of papers back and forth on long commutes to the hotel, and the gun always on top. She showed it to us. A couple of times. As part of a sentence that went like blah blah wave the gun around blah blah, a gesticulation more bracing than words. She was a big unadorned woman, she pinned a wig on top of her her regular hair and off she went. The gun wasn't so much an equalizer but a superiorizer, and that was considered perfectly reasonable decades ago in Shreveport which is nearly the same as Texas and Arkansas. You'll hear weather for the Arklatex.

Her oldest son owned the gun that Gary and I (Gary) lost in the bayou that marked the end of their property. That bayou looks slow but it's actually deep and the water moves like a conveyor belt.

When I was a kid I wondered why I was being exposed to guns so much. I could really do without that. I did not like the gun training we had through school. We were bused to an outdoor range for training and that happened at more than one school. Once here, a public school in Colorado. Some times we shot guns and some times we did not. That time we did. But those thoughts were private I assumed everyone else was into it because no one complained like I was complaining to myself, and later they pursued such things and I never cared for that pursuit. I did shoot guns with them but didn't like it. Too structured. Plus they were shooting a 22 rifle and it was like schwing schwing, completely unsatisfying, a step up from a bb gun seemed to me, but the other hand gun was so heavy it couldn't steadied and the thing went BLAM and jerked back so hard there is no real targeting, completely out of control and that was not on a range but some place chosen by teenagers.

Now if it were bow and arrows, that would be different, I could go for that. For some reason that would have held my interest but that was never offered. And the bits in the back yard with the makeshift bow and hours of knife throwing practicing back there by myself were not that productive. I did not become a blackbelt knife thrower in my mind

Man, what a loser.

At one point I thought I need stop because I was chipping the bark off the old tree. Old pecan tree, it could take it, but still, those big chunks were getting chewed off in one spot. I learned a lot about knife balance.

Every now and then I surprise myself by idly popping a screwdriver into an innocent box, it's irresistible.

Did kids whose dad was not in military have similar gun training too? One of those was at a public school that was closely attached to a nearby base. I thought everyone did because it was civilians I saw who were packing, not military. It was civilians not military influences that had that interest. If so then this flouncing is people like me with early training but disliking it purposefully deciding all at once on this occasion to being serious bitches. It's a spectacular nationally coordinated flounce where everyone goes brain dead on the subject all at once, erase their harddrives and we all start over again at STEP 1.

Insert disc.

Forced restart. Always so fun to restate positions with 100,000 other people all at once, practiced now that we do this with such precision and regularity like firedrills, then

BEATTHELIVINGSHITOUTOFHTEFIRSTPEEPOFOPPOSSITION

as part of that very practiced flounce. Like being stuck in a bad marriage and you cannot divorce and you know their every word and you're just so sick of them you could kill them but alas that would be bad.

If not then I can see guns being scary as hell even without hellacious tragedies to little girl opinion writers who never came near or touched one.

WASHINGTON — Marking the first anniversary of the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems.http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323

When the facts are not on their side, the left starts the name calling. Research by many individuals and organizations shows that the assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban had no effect on crime rates. Laws against hand guns are ineffective at reducing crime. Chicago comes to mind.

Any attempt to press on with such laws is an effort to feel good and demonstrate one's moral superiority. This is especially galling coming from people who have body guards and gated communities.

WASHINGTON — Marking the first anniversary of the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems.http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323

Of course. They are hypocrites through and through.Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid both carried concealed weapons for Years. Someone else, earlier linked to Clinton saying that armed guards needed to be in school after Columbine.This is all bullshit faux outrage brought by the usual suspects.

that should have said "sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. This picture is such an example".

By the way, here's another alternative modest proposal, to deal with private citizens having guns. Give all Americans a security detail of gun toting security guards. Then they won't have to protect themselves.

We wouldn't need 20 guys with guns, but how about two per family? If the family is large, maybe add a third. That's about 65,00 - 75,000 dollars per security guard. Times that by the number of families in the country. A modest proposal, certainly.

Or, how about accepting that if a president needs guns to protect himself from the world, that so too will private citizens. And since no one would seriously suggest that the whole country will get a security detail, why not let protect themselves as they've been doing.

Indigo Red wrote:Marking the first anniversary of the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems.http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323

When Piers Morgan heard this proposal he said of Clinton "YOU ARE A STUPID MAN!"

Oh wait, he never said that? So then not only is he a hypocrite about guns, but also about so called crazy extremist talk?

"For genuine security, we'd be better off with an employee response team. When I worked at the mental health center we had such a team for response when a patient threatened violence. Very effective."

Dr. Armstrong, report to room 215... Dr. Armstrong...

In any case, we trust "civilians" to operate deadly machines on a daily basis and don't think twice about it. And depending on what you do (ie. not infantry), military and police may not have much of any training before qualifying to carry a weapon, and once qualified might only have to shoot or requalify once a year. A person shouldn't assume they have more just because they carry the weapon for their job.

"Civilians" who like to shoot and who go through the process of getting a concealed carry permit are likely to shoot regularly, as much as police if not more. And if your particular state has nothing much for training requirements for concealed carry, then make extra training a condition for staff or a teacher carrying in school.

Adding that training is trivial and entirely doable. Acting like this is some amazing unmanageable chaotic disaster is dishonest.

"When you advocate that ccw permit holders be required to demonstrate they can actually hit what they are aiming at, then we can talk."

State laws differ, no doubt.

So require ccw permit holders who want to carry their weapon to work at k-12 public schools to complete additional training.

At what point has anyone AT ALL said that this is not acceptable?

DBQ suggested additional requirements. I've suggested additional requirements. No one that I noticed disagreed with either of us on the principle of requiring extra of teachers or staff carrying concealed in school.

Matthew Sablan: "We can't have national conversations on things when one side is told to shut up."

In my experience, it's easier to deal with being told outright to shut up, especially if the telling is in public. But that is rare...

What I see the NYT actually doing here is more perverse, and more common. The NYT is occupying both sides of the "conversation". It does not matter what one side says, or how "nuanced" (oh the irony) one is - the opponent is not actually listening.

I can't count the number of political "conversations" I've been in, where, after maybe 1-2 times back and forth, my interlocutor takes up both sides of the discussion, first telling me what my world view is, and then refuting those views. As long as I do not "rudely" interrupt, they can go on "conversing" forever this way. Apparently, it's possible to live happily in an intellectual bubble with only one person inside.Although I suspect that basing the NYT's business on this concept may have a flaw...

LaPierre, like you, Ann, is more invested in maintaining the broadest possible interpretation of gun rights in the USA, than in addressing the safety issues that people are talking about. Which is fine as far as it goes. But let's not pretend that LaPierre is engaging the safety issue.

The high school I attended (Pennsauken High School), was across the road from an industrial park. And in that industrial part, directly opposite the main entrance to the school, IIRC, was a shooting range. I am pretty sure there's never been a shooting at my old high school. And, though it may or may not be a "gun-free zone," there's plenty of guns across the street. (Perhaps we can put a gun range across from every school in America. At the current rate of gun sales, there's going to be an increased need for folks to practice shooting and learn about gun safety.)

No, we didn't have guns. We were positioned beside a university that had police with guns. (One was a high school classmate who did shoot someone once (non-fatal) when he threatened to attack.) They would respond in 2-3 minutes.

I would have liked an armed guard. We took 5 knives off a paranoid schizophrenic ex-biker once.

Teachers are probably not the best folks to arm in a school in terms of a response forece, chances are pretty good that they have a roomful of kids to manage as part of a response plan and they need to secure the room and do whatever else is necessary to follow the plan. I don't object to teachers being armed, if directly engaged by a mass shooter they need to be able to defend themselves and pin the attacker until more help can arrive, but they're not the first choice. Administrators or staff without direct pupil responsibility are the best able to respond to threats like those posed by the Newtown jagoff.

The "armed mob" response is typical for NYT hoplophobes who believe that the presence of a firearm turns otherwise peace-loving people into killers. They're much more comfortable with disarmed mobs, and incite them (e.g., their support of Occupy) when it suits their purposes. Armed mobs might not take the direction of their betters, which makes them the kind of thing the NYT would fear.

Most CCW permits do not require the applicant demonstrate proficiency with a firearm, just the ability to handle it safely

So?

Apparently you believe the Hollywood script: one shot, one kill. Bond. James Bond. and all that BS.

Have you tried reality lately? Large-city police departments are trained to fire however many rounds it takes to 'neutralize the threat.'

The original M-16's fire-control mechanism was changed from single-round and full-auto to single-round, "short burst" (3 rounds) and full-auto because the Army couldn't afford to buy all the rounds troops were using at full-auto.

What is going on, is that the media is "creating Dunblane." After a mass school shooting in Scotland in 1996, the UK the legal ownership of private handguns was effectively eliminated. Here in the US politicians who want a government monopoly on armed force are hoping their propaganda agencies can stir up an emotional response to the killings in CT. Just like it worked in the UK. Then it will be rifles and shotguns confiscated after the next crazy kills another group of children. One step at a time until we are utopian, just like Europe.

Never mind that a Newtown's worth of people are killed every month in Chicago. Of course they are poor and black mostly, so I guess that explains that. Never mind that Uro crazies kill 80+ people at a time with guns. Or that that next time it might be a bomb, or poison, or gas, etc.

Harrogate LaPierre is very much into gun safety unless you define safety as not owning a gun. To be honest, no amount of gun safety training will be ever be enough for those who don't like law-abiding private citizens to own and maintain any type of pistol, shotgun or rifle.

Winning a deadly gun battle is 99% in the human WILL of the defender. Anyone who has shot 500 rounds has learned the necessary skills. After that it's all in the individual's willingness to shoot to kill. Not to murder but certainly to kill. It doesn't matter how fast you can reload or how accurate you can shoot a handgun at 75 yards, in a gun fight that happens within 7 yards, in low light, in 3 seconds with whatever gun is in your hand. All that matters is BASIC skills plus the essential willingness to pull the trigger.

In this instance some tactical training, available to civilians at LFI, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch or DTI, would have made it safer for the defender but it wouldn't be necessary to his effectiveness. The active shooter can't hear or see beyond his business while he's at it. Getting through the last door is the problem but if murderer is shooting, he ain't watching his back.

The HR218 test (for retired LEO's to carry everywhere) has no tactical component. They depend on experiences that may be 20 or 30 years old. I can meet that.

My campus bans gun carry by students and employees. Yet, every time, since permits became available in 2003, if a student was thought to be a potential problem, I've gotten a note from my Dean telling me the prohibition is suspended for me. I always respond that I'm not a security guard or always present. But, somehow it make the anti-gun sheep feel better to know that there is a sheepdog in the valley.

"What the NY Times and the NY Post need is a good crazed murderer running amok in their offices. With a knife or a bomb, not a gun, so those flaming faggots can feel the fear of being disarmed and helpless, like the women they are."

That is unlikely to happen, as they have armed guards and a metal detector at a security checkpoint entrance to their facilities.

Anyone who has shot 500 rounds has learned the necessary skills. After that it's all in the individual's willingness to shoot to kill.

Bullshit. Firing at targets is completely different than firing at someone shooting at you under extreme stress. Police and military train to fire (and evaluate the situation, which is much more important) under stress. Ripping off a few rounds at a paper target in a shooting range is an extremely poor substitute.

-----I live in New Orleans, which has the highest murder rate, by far, in the country.----

Another example of a liberal knowing a fact which is not true. Gosh, you guys could win a lot more arguments if you didn't make up facts.

Detroit has lost more than 200,000 residents since 2001, yet it racked up 344 murders last year, compared with 395 a decade ago. The Motor City’s murder rate is second only to New Orleans among cities over 200,000 population (Flint, Mich. narrowly beats Detroit among all cities, with a murder rate of 52 per 100,000)

"Bullshit. Firing at targets is completely different than firing at someone shooting at you under extreme stress. Police and military train to fire (and evaluate the situation, which is much more important) under stress. Ripping off a few rounds at a paper target in a shooting range is an extremely poor substitute."

The concealed carry classes at the range here include exactly that stuff. That's what it's about. The decision making, the law, all that stuff your imagination says they don't do.

How about you take a concealed carry course and then tell us that it only involves putting holes in a paper target or two.

We get in TONS, I do mean TONS of illegal drugs in the U.S. So why would not guns and ammo be smuggled in if restrictions were made?

In fact, there is a lot of smuggling going one - pretty much every full automatic weapon found in the hands of criminals was smuggled into this country, most typically from Mexico. Guns are a relatively high margin product that don't have quite the smell that some drugs, like pot, have, and don't have the inconveniences and complications that smuggling humans into this country does.

In retrospect, Fast and Furious was interesting because they were smuggling semiautomatic AR-15 type weapons south into Mexico, while fully automatic M-16s, M-4s, AK-47s, etc. were being smuggled north across the same border.

1. Look up the training manuals for LEOs. They have to requalify (using the same course of fire as the typical CCW holder) once per year. They are not required to darken a range door otherwise. That leads to little incidents like this:

"The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself." "

2. "And btw there are cities with worse murder rates than Chicago (e.g., New Orleans) that effectively have no gun control. "

But what the liar forgets to mention is that those cities, like New Orleans, are all run by Democrats, have majority Democrat populations, etc. If he wants to propose that DEMOCRATS be banned from carrying guns (or being in charge of those who do) that might be logical.

Frederson, you have a greatly exaggerated understanding of the quantity and quality of firearms training for the average police officer - which for the bulk of departments in the US consists of a handful of hours. Some might even given their officers another handful of hours in a simulator that engages them in shoot/no-shoot scenarios. But only a minority of departments do even that.

I've spent three decades in competitive shooting sports, and the average police officer simply does not exceed the training level of any civilian who shows up regularly to any practical shooting sport.

It isn't just "Let school employees with CCW carry in the schools," Freder, (who assumes that means they can't hit the side of a barn.) This school in Texas has laid out additional training. Weirdly (it would be to the NYT, apparetnly) it is reasonable and thoughtful. (Dang. No derangement noted.)

In addition -- anyone who has read the Larry Correia piece referenced has learned(!) that the state of Utah has had CCW school employees for years. "In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now."

"NYT:People like Mr. LaPierre want us to believe that civilians can be trained to use lethal force with cold precision in moments of fear and crisis."

i don't claim to be a person like Mr. LaPierre. But my students achieve this all the time. It's just a fact. In fact I have taken people who stood in front of a pistol shaking and hyperventilating, and gotten them to chew the heart out of a silhouette target with .45 slugs by the end of the weekend. This isn't rocket science, most people are not hysteric, physical skills are variably teachable, and I would quail to be downrange at any distance from any of my students over the years -- if I had given them cause to fear for their or another person's life.

"NYT:People like Mr. LaPierre want us to believe that civilians can be trained to use lethal force with cold precision in moments of fear and crisis."

The armed forces have brought out in millions of young men and women the natural "will to kill." Once you discover it in yourself, it never goes away.

THe discovery can be done, quickly and permanently especially if the killing will be entirely defensive. No moral quams, just a bit of self-discovery. Freder hasn't, and perhaps can't, make that decision so he's left to imagine the rest of us are in the same position of weakness. Nope, been there, done that, got the OD t-shirt.

Are we to believe that the elite private schools in NYC and DC attended by the media elite's children don't have an armed security force? You can bet your ass they do because their children are more important than your's.

Freder Frederson?Really?Don't you have some windows to lick on the short bus?Go back to wanking in mommy's basement.Give me some more lectures about police work and training-I am dying to know what I missed!Also enlighten me on the last time you faced incoming fire.

Well, had to stop reading after about the third or fourth scene-chewing from mr feder fredsenedersen concerning his faith that unless the faculty and staff can produce a crack shot, it must need forgo the entire enterprise and simply opt for hoping any mass killer will have an off day, perhaps producing inferior stats.

Mr ferder erictheredsen, sir, here's what you need to know: the gun carrier has not gone through the system accidentally, and will not be astonished to notice that he or she has a gun in carry --it is so because he or she had already been worrying about getting hurt (or seeing another get hurt) by the criminal out there in the future.

So the prospective defender is already dwelling on the many ways the defender might get hurt in the defending. The proof of that is the gun, you see.

The first thought of a carrier is almost invariably, "But to target the bad guy is to make the bad guy target ME!"

And right there a sorting occurs, and only the committed will go on and get a gun and carry it.

Are they committing to draw gunfire? Yes. Do they want to get shot? No.

How do they solve? They get good with the gun. The impetus is the bullet in the face they don't want. No, not they don't want their face, the bullet they don't want to hit it.

Their incentive is to put a bullet in the gunman before the vice versa can happen. That incentive --trust this-is there whether you thought of already, or not.

Now mr fedex fedexsender, i myself as a fellow scandaluvian do well savvy the tocsin our brains is heir to, that all-or-nothing-is-not-extreme-enough-but-hell-it'll-have-to-do berserker strain that famously once led NYC tomorrow-bound Homer Simpson to suddenly contemplate the downtown pickpockets --and whip out his wallet and throw it into the fireplace, roaring "There! They won't be getting Homer SIMPSON's wallet!"

It's kind of funny. When I first pinned on a badge they did not have me pass a test where I had to shoot a couple of bad guys before they let me carry a service weapon. So, please don't tell me about shooting some holes in targets.

And, try not to tell me much about LEOs being good with weapons, very few are. Every year since about the late '70s the budgets for training ammo have shrunk.

When I hired on, right after my time in the service we still had trustees in our county jail making reloaded ammo for training. This stopped. Shortly after that my department lost it's pitol team.

In most departments in the US an officer who shoots for pleasure is considered somewhat suspect by the brass. Welcome to the 21st Century. There is a reason why there are so many cases of cops firing forty and fifty rounds with, often only one or two scratch hits on the suspect.

Freder Frederson said...Most CCW permits do not require the applicant demonstrate proficiency with a firearm, just the ability to handle it safely

I have a concealed carry permit from the state of WI. All that was required from me was a copy of my DD214 and $50 (good for 5 years). I didn't have to show anybody anything. No quick draw, nothing. Hell, they don't even know if I own a gun.

When I encounter a controversy at this late stage of one-sidedness, my instinct is to develop the other side. Law school class is like that, you know. If there's a case that everyone just somehow knows is rightly decided, the way to have a discussion about it isn't to remark upon its obviousness, but to figure out how someone — someone intelligent, educated, and sane — could think it wasn't right. That's what I do.

Those 15 minutes of hate directed at the NRA will be followed by 15 minutes of hate directed at the NY Times and Andrew Sullivan.

The NYEffingTimes has that standard idea that's causing so much damage: that calling someone a 'civilian' means they're not properly government-approved, and thus are no good at such things. Despite all evidence.

I like to use this quote from Terry Pratchett: "It always embarrassed Samuel Vimes when civilians tried to speak to him in what they thought was "policeman." If it came to that, he hated thinking of them as civilians. What was a policeman, if not a civilian with a uniform and a badge? But they tended to use the term these days as a way of describing people who were not policemen. It was a dangerous habit: once policemen stopped being civilians the only other thing they could be was soldiers."

I have a NC CCL (and so does my wife) and we CAN SO hit the broad side of a barn ... as long as it is about 50 feet away and has a 2" dot somewhere near the middle of it. Of course, after a few hits with a .45, we need a new dot. After an hour or so, we need a new barn.

When I load the revolver with 000 .410 shotshells and shoot from 5 yards, the dot disappears on the first shot. Poof! Confetti.

It costs a little extra in paper targets, but it's fairly satisfying to know that two disabled seniors can (and will) defend each other when needed.

All legal.

You ought to try it sometime ... blowing holes in paper is just about as much fun as my cardiologist will let me have. :-)